Tuesday, April 1, 2014

The Way May-Issue Works in Illinois

"My concealed carry license application was denied. I can forward you the full explanation of reasons of possible denial but the short version is: I was arrested 6 years ago for domestic battery, charges were dropped. I was admitted voluntarily for a week to a psychiatric ward ten years ago. That's it. Anyway, I'm in the process of figuring out how to appeal it. In that process, aside from contacting the Illinois State Police, I sent an email to the folks over at Illinois Carry. They in turn forwarded my info to the NRA, and I just got off the phone with a nice lady over there. They're putting together of a list of some bullsh*t denials to see what they can do about it." Watch this space.

It seems to me the "charges were dropped" can mean a lot of things. That's exactly why may-issue is so important. Many people who have not sustained the requisite felony conviction are absolutely unfit to own guns and carry them in public. The arresting officer in this case might have had information about the man that is relevant.

An arrest for domestic battery is not like a simple restraining order. An angry wife can sometimes get a restraining order for little or no reason, but people aren't arrested by the cops and taken to jail for domestic battery for no reason.

34 comments:

A crime for which one is not convicted (and to which one does not plead guilty) is a crime for which one cannot be legitimately punished. His Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right is being denied for something of which there is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt.

There you go, Kurt. Supporting a guy who was arrested for domestic battery is as despicable as the wife beater himself. Charges can be dropped for many reasons, but that doesn't change the fact. This is exactly why we need "may issue."

BTW, TS, regarding the psych admittance vs. the arrest, you could be right, but I've seen cases where the arrest led to denials until the denied individual could submit paperwork showing that the charges were dropped, they were found not guilty, etc.

Unfortunately, local courts and police departments fail to file the state level paperwork showing the disposition of these cases often enough to make this a real problem.

Kurt, I don't remember if we discussed that Kentucky bill or if I just read about it. But, what's the difference between the temporary permit and a regular one. Aren't those victims of domestic abuse eligible to apply for a regular permit like anyone else?

The training requirement is waived for the temporary permit (which is good for 45 days)--and the entire process is somewhat expedited and streamlined (the state police have to act within one business day after receiving the application). If the permit holder receives the training within that 45-day time frame, the permit is then upgraded a regular permit.

Still unconstitutional carry (because of the permit requirement), but a significant improvement for domestic violence victims, when compared to the current system.

Illinois is shall-issue. The criteria is objective, not subject to the whims of an official. I'm sure we differ of what the criteria should be, but if you are ok with Illinois' system, then you shouldn't object to the ninth district's decision in Peruta.

You keep misstating the law and making unfounded assumptions. Charges were dropped can, just as well, mean that the guy was totally innocent and falsely accused by an angry woman.

An Arrest Requires LESS evidence than a restraining order--restraining order requires preponderance of the evidence 51%. Arrest requires "Probable Cause" A much weaker standard--the one required to get a warrant. Moreover, if the guy hasn't had any problems in the intervening 6 years, it would seem more likely that the charges were dropped because they were based on false statements.

You freely admit that a restraining order can be gotten for little or no reason, and yet the more stringent requirements for proof are why the line is drawn to make a person a prohibited person if they're subject to a protective order--not if they've been merely arrested. Of course--your statement shows that the protective order's proof is also too weak for this adjudication if it can be gotten for little or no reason.

I'm sure you'll try to twist this into support of wife beaters, but you'd be 100% wrong. This is a matter of protecting the rights of the innocent from being violated unjustly and keep them from being tarred with the shame that belongs to those who would beat their wives.

You very well can be. But I see there's no arguing with you at this point. You've made up your mind, and no matter how many examples you're shown, you've determined that any arrest for domestic violence is proof of guilt, and that any dismissal is nothing but a broken system letting them get away.

Gone is the presumption of innocence. Gone the notion that we should let 10 or 100 guilty get away rather than jail or execute an innocent man. Gone the notion of a need for a trial.

All because you believe, in the face of the existence of plenty of evidence to the contrary, that people are incapable of lying about abuse and bringing false charges.

You're the one with whom there's no arguing. Why is it so hard for you to admit that an arrest for domestic battery, except in extremely rare cases, means the buy was beating up the woman. Later she drops the charges for whatever reason, but that doesn't make him "innocent," at least not in any practical sense of the word. Are you such a gun-rights extremist that you want guys like that, and I'm talking about the vast majority who get arrested for this shit, to own and carry guns?

Why is it so hard for me to admit that? Two reasons--One is that you're still overstating your case--even if MOST arrests are of actual batterers, that doesn't mean that this one or any particular one is--there ARE arrests based on false charges. The other is that I'm a stickler for those other parts of the Bill of Rights about no deprivation of life, liberty, or property without Due Process--innocent until proven guilty--all that jazz that you want to toss.

At the end, you try to subtly change the topic asking if I want certain individuals armed, switching to a discussion of the "vast majority" who are guilty. Since we're now talking about the guilty, no, I don't want them armed. If we're talking wishes here, I'd have them flogged the first time they beat their wife, and then have them take the long walk the second time. If we're talking doable legislation, many states have statutes that allow the police to continue pressing charges if the battered spouse backs out but they have evidence to continue pursuing them. I like that idea--convict them and lock them up. You'll note that this solution still requires evidence, due process, etc.

So, your sounding like you approve of the paradigm that if you apply the innocent until proven guilty premise that is the backbone of the American justice system to domestic violence cases, then you're in favor of domestic violence? Unfortunately, accusing the other partner is an often used tactic during a contentious separation and divorce, and often it comes down to a he said/she said situation. However, while there may not be adequate proof for a criminal conviction, a hearing for a protective order requires a lesser burden of proof, and as Simon rightly states, the probable cause needed for an arrest even less. And these false accusations result in both added expense, trauma to any children involved, and when found to be false, make those who are actually victims of such violence face an increasingly skeptical audience. In fact, recently, a Democratic Congressman from Florida faced such accusations and the only thing that saved him was that he had the foresight to have a staffer accompany him as a witness, who also took a video of the encounter. Even with that evidence, as we often find here, the wheels of justice turn slowly and during that time he was kept from his children. And while you may fall back on the all's well that ends well, platitude, one thing sticks out in this story is that even after being proven to be a false accusation, there are no legal consequences for the person who filed a false police report.

"Rep. Grayson showed up unannounced at his wife's home, prompting an altercation during which he "deliberately and with force pushed [Lolita Grayson] very hard against the front door, causing [her] to fall to the ground as a result," according to the petition filed by Lolita Grayson and obtained by the Sentinel. Before calling 911, Lolita Grayson says that she kicked her estranged husband in the stomach and pushed away his face "in order to protect and defend herself." The congressman's wife also argued that "from time to time," Grayson "has battered [her] and the parties' minor children."

"Alan Grayson's attorneys released a video Wednesday that they said supported the congressman's account.The video shot by a staffer for the congressman shows Lolita Grayson walking from a red minivan parked in front of their home, pointing her finger and shouting. The video then cuts to the congressman and his wife arguing at the front door to the house. It then shows Lolita Grayson pushing her hand at her estranged husband's face. Alan Grayson was at the house to visit his children."

It wouldn't have been much of a stretch for someone not of Grayson's status and position to find themselves arrested after these accusations. And then, in a may-issue state, you would be quite willing to deny that person a carry permit merely based on being arrested for something that didn't occur.

This guy was ARRESTED for domestic BATTERY. That doesn't happen by mistake or because of a contentious divorce. That happens when the cops are called in and witness the aftermath of a violent scene. Whatever happens after that, that guy should not get a carry permit. he shouldn't even be allowed to own guns at all.

False statement of facts. Happens plenty often. Know of a case where a woman sawed her necklace back and forth, called the cops, and got her husband arrested because she was crying so much about how he slung her around by her collar and necklace.

Liberal friend who didn't like guns or my carrying of them got it dismissed and got his guns back for him simply because it was the right thing to do.

But go on with your arguing for the destruction of the presumption of innocence and demands of infamy based on arrest.

Yeah, talk about anecdotal stories. Most times when someone gets arrested for domestic battery it's because when the cops get there the woman has a beaten face and there's blood on the floor, or worse. You know this, but you insist on using exceedingly rare exceptions to that to justify blanket gun rights for all.

If your sister or your mother had a relationship with an abusive asshole, would you be all "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" about it? I don't think so.

Actually Mike, it happens far more than you would think. As Simon stated the burden of proof to make the arrest is far lower than that required for a conviction. Most agencies have a shall arrest policy when it comes to accusations of domestic battery, largely for liability reasons. I have made several arrests for domestic battery only to find out after the fact that the accusations were without warrant. One arrest had the female with bruises on her body, only to find out from a witness that the bruises were self inflicted due to the spouses mental illness. Before you run off saying I support DV and i am defending assholes or whatever path you choose, all I am saying is that many of these things you say never happen, actually occur on a fairly regular basis. I know this from being LE myself as well as coming from a family of LEO's. the unfortunate reality is when it comes to domestic situations they are very murky and very complicated.MikeZ

No, Mike, I insist on using that and other examples I could have pulled out to show that there are exceptions to the blanket rule you're implicitly proposing, and to illustrate why I want a case by case evaluation via due process of law.

In a situation like you claim is the most common, a better solution is to allow the police to continue pressing charges even if the battered spouse withdraws them--so long as they can show the bruises, blood, etc. and show that they were not self inflicted, they can get that conviction and put the bastard away.

MikeZ, Thanks for the other info--I was forgetting to mention the common shall arrest policies.BTW, is it Mike Z or Mike Z W the writer?

Simon, not a problem. Its just plain Mike Z. Not fsure what you mean with Mike Z W. Usually the police themselves cant press charges as they are not the victims, generally the police are the mediators. If you notice the way tickets are written its the victim v suspect. even on stuff like traffic tickets its the people v suspect or the state v the suspect. MikeZ

MikeZ, I was wondering if you were Michael Z. Williams--a sci-fi writer I've seen comment on other blogs on occasion. That's what the question was about.

As for the police not being able to press charges, I understand that that is the common baseline. I was referring to changes in the law made in other states and which MikeB could push for. In my state, they passed one of these laws, so sometimes cases will go forward even if the battered spouse is intimidated into dropping the charges.

its typically up to the DA and often comes out as people V suspect. Officers typically have no say in whether charges are filed, and you are correct in cases going forward if the battered spouse is intimidated. MikeZ

"A common definition is "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause

But, an officer might make an arrest in good faith and it turns out that they were mistaken, then the guy gets let go and there should be NO adverse effects in the future. Rights should not be lost without due process. Especially those in the control of the government, such as issuance of a carry permit. Minnesota protects this in its permit law by allowing an issuing Sheriff to deny a permit if they believe a person is a danger to self or others, but also gives the denied applicant the opportunity to appeal the decision in front of a judge where the Sheriff would be required to justify his decision. If the appeal is successful, the county is required to pay court costs and reasonable legal fees incurred by the applicant.